Were legislators this session more interested in helping minimum-wage workers, or scoring political points?

By rejecting calls for compromise and insisting on a full $1-an-hour increase in the state minimum wage, lawmakers may have burnished their reputations as stalwart defenders of the poor. But they did so knowing full well that the measure would be vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez.

And Friday afternoon, that's exactly what happened.

Martinez had made clear that she would support an increase of 30 cents that would have bumped the minimum wage to $7.80 an hour, equal to Arizona for the highest in the region. But she would not support the $1 hike.

Lawmakers had a choice. They could accept the 30-cent raise now and continue trying to increase it in future years, knowing that progress on these issues often comes incrementally.

Or, they could insist on the $1 raise, let Martinez veto it and then use it as a political cudgel against her. They chose to turn down the raise and take the cudgel.

That won't harm them, but it will their constituents who were counting on them.

"Had there been willingness to compromise on a reasonable wage rate that is in line with our neighboring states, I would be signing into law a higher minimum wage today," Martinez said in her veto statement.

Democrats wasted no time in blasting the veto, spicing their indignation with religious overtones.

Advertisement

"On Holy Friday, New Mexico's Catholic Governor, Susana Martinez, who just got back from Rome, representing the United States to greet Pope Francis I, forgets about the poor and middle class working New Mexicans and sides with the Republican Party and big corporate donors by vetoing the dollar minimum wage increase," the state Democratic Party railed in a press release Friday.

Would it have been OK if she had issued the veto on Thursday or Saturday?

Since the introduction of the minimum wage bills, we've heard the same familiar arguments as to the impact such increases have on jobs and prices. Both sides trot out competing studies to make their point. But every situation is different. What the economy will bear in Santa Fe may not be the same in San Miguel.

I do believe the time is right for a minimum wage increase at the federal level. According to a story published by Forbes in December, corporations enjoyed the largest after-tax profit quarter in the nation's history in the third quarter of 2012, "a stunning 18.6 percent."

Unfortunately, their employees have not shared in that windfall. According to that same story, total wages, as a percentage of gross domestic product, have fallen to an all-time low during the same period. Which is probably why President Barack Obama called for a federal minimum wage increase in his State of the Union Address.

But the issue raised by Martinez is the local impact on job-creation in New Mexico if our minimum wage were to suddenly skyrocket to levels well beyond our neighboring states.

A $1 increase would have made New Mexico's minimum wage fourth-highest in the nation. At the same time, our cost of living is lower than most states — and would be much lower if not for Los Alamos and Santa Fe.

Governing involves compromise.

Two years ago in this column, I criticized the governor for rejecting a compromise on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants that would have significantly tightened the security controls involved in the issuing of those licenses, addressing the public safety concerns that she said made repeal necessary. She took an all-or-nothing approach and got nothing.

Democrats made the same mistake this year.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.